When I just started working in HIV advocacy in the early part of the 2000s (right after returning to the Philippines after completing my undergraduate degree in the University of Newcastle in NSW, Australia), I remember a cautionary tale – if you will – that regularly made the rounds. Apparently, there’s an HIV “advocate” who allegedly used funds received for personal benefit; for this, he was eventually kicked out of the HIV community, never to work in it again.
I have been working in HIV advocacy for over 25 years now, and – thankfully – I have seen versions of this self-purging.
There’s that Cebu City-based HIV “advocate” who – it was also alleged – was pocketing funds. His HIV facility eventually closed as he went into “hiding”; he surfaced elsewhere after a while, though no longer in HIV advocacy.
There’s this Cagayan de Oro-based HIV “advocate” whose alleged mishandling of funds resulted to the (initial) demise of a local organization; after he was removed, the non-government organization had to restart everything (with the process still ongoing).
And yet, despite these seeming self-cleansing from within the HIV community, I noted one thing: That the “role” of those who have been alleged to have profited off HIV has changed, so that nowadays, there are those who are glorified, even emulated.
Kawat (Theft), or at least profiteering, is real. But so it its normalization. And yes, celebration.
In 2023, while attending the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and Sydney WorldPride, I met transgender people from the Pacific (including those from Western Samoa, Fiji and Cook Islands). Two of their loudest complaints revolved around:
- Hijacking of transgender movement not necessarily of the West (i.e. White countries), but their “pets” in regional hubs (like Bangkok, Thailand, where international donor agencies have offices). The funds are “kept” by these regional offices in Bangkok, and they – thereby – have to “power” to decide on what projects transgender communities can only implement (even if they do not know shit about the contexts of these transgender communities that they “serve”).
- Imposition of locally not-workable concepts just because these are demanded by Western funders. For instance, “leaders” based in Bangkok went to them to “train” them about being transgender, often instilling concepts that emanated from the West, and which – more often than not – do not work in APAC contexts.
There’s no “theft” reported; but profiteering was pinpointed (with the expenses for the visit of the Bangkok-based speaker costing more than the entire budget for the transgender movement in one of the countries visited).
Here’s what’s interesting for me: these transgender “leaders” were in awe of the “speaker” who came from Bangkok NOT because she was any good at what she did but because she lived an extravagant lifestyle (she only wears luxury goods, she traveled the world as an #illegalmowdel, et cetera) that they wanted.
So they “hated” that she penetrated their community to tell them what’s good for them (while using money from the West), but they also wanted to be like her.
I chatted with Western Samoan transgender community leader Darryl Anesi, a former classmate from the University of Newcastle, and she said that they have long noticed this, which highlighted the emulation of social climbing in their local LGBTQIA and HIV movements.
So yeah, we know it’s wrong… but we now want to be part of it.
In the HIV advocacy in the Philippines, things have also started to worsen (if you will).
Kung akala mo walang pera sa (If you think there’s no money in) HIV advocacy, you’re wrong.
To emphasize: Actual “theft” may be hard to prove, but extreme profiteering is apparent.
Because here, maloloka ka (you’ll go crazy) on the stories we hear, on the allegations we encounter, e.g. there are people who can afford a $66,500 (excluding taxes) necklace; will only use Rimowa when traveling (cost of bag tag alone = $270); and can waste money on a high-end Apple Watch Edition (costing from $10,000 and $20,000, with luxury design companies selling diamond-studded Apple Watch for $75,000).
Oo (Yes), no lifestyle check happened, or is happening.
And this is even if we now report over 50 new HIV cases per day. Over 30% of them are 24 years old or under. Only 64% receive lifesaving antiretroviral medicines. And in March 2024 alone, 12 persons living with HIV died (due to an illness that these stupid “advocates” will tell you “IS no longer a death sentence”).
No one should be getting rich in this scenario. But yeah, here we are. Where you may ask where’s ethics in HIV service delivery, and the answer is, basically, “Talk to the hand… or the pocket.”
The weird – and ironically funny – thing for me is: Many in HIV advocacy have been talking about these for years now. PhilHealth is aware of the complaints about misappropriation. Even funders have been made aware about this na (already). And yet… nothing is happening. Upgraded lifestyle in “advocacy” has, in fact, been “normalized”, and so now it’s not uncommon to encounter people wanting to have this, too.
Sadly, HIV service delivery continues to suck. But yeah, go on, flaunt the wealth derived from HIV “advocacy”.
Blood money na ang tawag diyan (This is what we call blood money).
